So...since I haven't seen it touched on...I'm offering this thread on D&D 4E:
Have they? Should they? Would They fuck with D&D's alignment system in the new edition?
My vote is FUCK NO! Alignment is THE mechanic that seperates D&D's game from all of the rest of the games. No other game has alignments or puts them in play as well as D&D. It's a requirement to be Dungeons and Dragons!!
I'm guessing that since apparently every single "sacred cow" that predates 3es (but apparently none of 3es own sacred cows) are now considered to be bad and in need of purging, alignment will end up radically changed somehow.
Damned if I know what it'll be changed to...
RPGPundit
Quote from: KrakaJakMy vote is FUCK NO! Alignment is THE mechanic that seperates D&D's game from all of the rest of the games. No other game has alignments or puts them in play as well as D&D. It's a requirement to be Dungeons and Dragons!!
Well Palladium has alignments but they are a little to much. D&D has a pretty clean easy set up. Honestly my opinion would be to keep the alignments. Hell if you don't there go a whole slew of alignment altering cursed items.
Quote from: KrakaJakHave they? Should they? Would They fuck with D&D's alignment system in the new edition?
My vote is FUCK NO! Alignment is THE mechanic that seperates D&D's game from all of the rest of the games.
"The mechanic" is an interesting choice of words since actually, alignments are more like a tossed in feature that doesn't have much mechanics tied to it. At least not centrally. It's more like peripheral stuff.
There are plenty of ways to make alignments interesting and it doesn't even have to be complicated. The latest example I have seen (if the reviews are correct) is Forward to Adventure!
First of all, FtA! re-emphasizes the polarity by using only one axis. Secondly, FtA! Makes alignments work as a sort of meter. It's elegant. And finally, at a certain point in FtA!, you can look erm... forward to something concrete happening. If you delve enough into goodness or chaos (I don't have the exact terms the game used) you could actually become a champion.
I like how the guidelines are apparently vague enough for a GM to adapt it to his style, yet evocative enough to actually mean something. And they're absolutely central.
Quote from: KrakaJakNo other game has alignments or puts them in play as well as D&D.
I'd like to know how D&D puts alignements into play so "well". I'm not seeing it. Most heroic games have alignments, BTW. They just don't always call them alignments or make them a useless symbolic feature.
I think D&D should keep alignments. But as it is right now, alignments are one of the weakest feature in an otherwise fine game.
Quote from: RPGPunditI'm guessing that since apparently every single "sacred cow" that predates 3es (but apparently none of 3es own sacred cows) are now considered to be bad and in need of purging, alignment will end up radically changed somehow.
Damned if I know what it'll be changed to...
RPGPundit
I am inclined to concur with this suspicion, as it is quite in line with the behavior of the devs so far.
ENWorld's clearinghouse of dev statements gives us these:
QuoteWhat changes are in store for alignment? "In the end, there's still alignment. There will be some changes though. There'll be some tweaks... Even non-gamers know what a 12th level lawful good paladin is."
Will alignment be a factor in the new edition? "It’s not going to be what it is now. Alignment is part of the story, part of the character. It is a useful shorthand, but too many books and too many players mistake it for limitation. We want to treat alignment as something bigger than that. We won’t get rid of it, but we don’t want it to be a replacement for character and personality."
Mentioned that paladins can be of other alignments other than lawful good.
Quote from: Consonant DudeI think D&D should keep alignments. But as it is right now, alignments are one of the weakest feature in an otherwise fine game.
I think that is, in part, because D&D is trying to have alignments while straddling the line between moral relativism and moral absolutism. You can make a morally relative alignment system work and a morally absolute alignment system work but trying to straddle the line between them is a mess because they are incompatible with each other.
Quote from: John MorrowI think that is, in part, because D&D is trying to have alignments while straddling the line between moral relativism and moral absolutism. You can make a morally relative alignment system work and a morally absolute alignment system work but trying to straddle the line between them is a mess because they are incompatible with each other.
I totally, totally agree with that, John.
Quote from: Consant Dude"The mechanic" is an interesting choice of words since actually, alignments are more like a tossed in feature that doesn't have much mechanics tied to it. At least not centrally. It's more like peripheral stuff.
QuoteI'd like to know how D&D puts alignements into play so "well". I'm not seeing it. Most heroic games have alignments, BTW. They just don't always call them alignments or make them a useless symbolic feature.
How about 50% of Cleric spells (a core class), and the entire Palladin class. Both classes that are also balanced in play through alignment requirements.
Add that to Gods, entire races bound to them, Circle of Protection, Alignment Banishment spells and special effects, weapon enchantments etc.....it's always been a HUGE part of my D&D games.
Good and Evil have always been quantitive things (same with Law and Chaos) and it's the only game with alignment interated into the mechanics of the WHOLE FRIKKIN' UNIVERSE!
I expect that each character will be a unique snowflake with a personalized code of honor. Clerics and Paladins will also have personalized list of enimies. Already there's fiddly rules about how such and such a light spell does double damage against light sensitive undead and oozes.
I suspect that good, neutral and evil will be races. Evil spells will be extra strong against celestials and anyone with celestial blood just like Light spells are currently extra strong against undead and oozes. Not that much of a rules change actually.
QuoteI expect that each character will be a unique snowflake with a personalized code of honor.
Bah. That's what CN is for.
Yeah, all alignments = CN. Isn't that what the quote said?
We want to treat alignment as something bigger than [a limitation]
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumYeah, all alignments = CN. Isn't that what the quote said?
We want to treat alignment as something bigger than [a limitation]
My point is, like so many of the pointless changes announced for 4e, there's already more than enough framework present to allow the concepts being put forward, and deliberately redesigning an entire game based on that concept, is a stupid waste of time.
I'd like to see alignment stay, but I'd also like to see the Allegence mechanic from D20 Modern incorporated as well. A Lawful Good Paladin whose Allegence is to (say) King Richard the Wise would be quite different than another LG Paladin whose allegence is to Cardinal Jacob of Lyndon Abbey.
The Alignment is about what your character will and won't do to achieve their goals. Allegence is about why you're persuing those goals.
A nice way of implementing that might be that Evil characters are loyal to a person or an institution, whereas Good characters are loyal to a principle.
Quote from: ScoundrelI'd like to see alignment stay, but I'd also like to see the Allegence mechanic from D20 Modern incorporated as well. A Lawful Good Paladin whose Allegence is to (say) King Richard the Wise would be quite different than another LG Paladin whose allegence is to Cardinal Jacob of Lyndon Abbey.
The Alignment is about what your character will and won't do to achieve their goals. Allegence is about why you're persuing those goals.
Quote from: KrakaJakMy vote is FUCK NO! Alignment is THE mechanic that seperates D&D's game from all of the rest of the games. No other game has alignments or puts them in play as well as D&D. It's a requirement to be Dungeons and Dragons!!
I wouldn't go so far as to call it THE mechanic. After all, a lot of D&D never had 'good-evil' axis, it only had 'lawful-chaotic', and that worked okay. But to be honest, I see no need to change alignment, it works, so probably they'll bugger it up completely.
Quote from: Age of FableA nice way of implementing that might be that Evil characters are loyal to a person or an institution, whereas Good characters are loyal to a principle.
A principle like communism or national socialism?
By that line of reasoning a loyal wife is an evil wife.
I can't stand alignment. Playing Arcana Evolved for a few years soured me on the whole concept.
-O
I'm really of two minds with this. Whatever the number of axis, quantifiable alignement is definetly a important part of the D&D 'experience'. If I had my way, I'd keep it as a roleplaying guideline and as a way to force the players to take a clear stand on morality issues and I'd get rid of any spell/object/ability/thing which makes it possible to quantify it. But then, I'd have some trouble calling the result 'D&D'...
Whereas I hate alignment systems, have always hated alignment systems, and believe they serve little purpose other than to start alignment arguments during the game (or best case scenario, pathetic moral relativism statements to justify PC behavior) so the fact that 4e isn't getting rid of them would be a disappointment for me.
I mean, as long as we're getting rid of all the good parts of D&D (to make it into a P&P video game) we may as well hack off the antiquated notion of alignment.
Quote from: Age of FableA nice way of implementing that might be that Evil characters are loyal to a person or an institution, whereas Good characters are loyal to a principle.
I vote: no.
Quote from: jgantsWhereas I hate alignment systems, have always hated alignment systems, and believe they serve little purpose other than to start alignment arguments during the game (or best case scenario, pathetic moral relativism statements to justify PC behavior) so the fact that 4e isn't getting rid of them would be a disappointment for me.
....
I'm of the same mind on that. I'd much rather see an emphasis on alignments are not something you choose, but what is imposed on you by your actions. There will still be arguments, about what is a good act and what evil.
It would however cut the crap of "my alignment made me do it" to justify PC behavior. That's no cover anymore, you as a player choose the evil act; your character's alignment didn't force you to act that way to be in character.
It will also still keep all the spells that are hardwired into it.
That being said, alignment be it L v. C + E v. G; or simply L v. C, seems like a pretty enduring D&D'ism and works well with all those spells.
Quote from: KrakaJakI vote: no.
Agreed. Allegiance = good, but forcing allegiance to be specific based on allignment = not so much.
I'd rather have both, but I'll settle for one or the other.